Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It transparently discloses the tier system and authentication requirement (agent_id), explaining what each tier unlocks. It does not mention destructive actions or side effects, but for a query tool, this is acceptable. Minor omission: no description of behavior if agent_id is invalid.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single paragraph that front-loads the main purpose, then explains the tier system. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be more concise, but still effective.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the main use case and gating mechanism well, but lacks details about the return format (e.g., what each finding contains) and error scenarios (e.g., missing agent_id). Given the complexity (tiers, 5 parameters), it is adequate but not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 80% (4 of 5 parameters described). The description adds significant context beyond the schema, such as explaining that agent_id is used for authentication and tier unlocking, and how tiers affect results. This goes above the baseline 3 for high coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Query the collective intelligence of the agent network.' It specifies when to use it—'before entering trades to filter out sector failures, risk warnings, or bad regime signals'—and distinguishes it from siblings like 'add_trade' and 'vote' by focusing on querying collective intelligence.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear guidance on when to use the tool ('before entering trades'), what it filters (sector failures, risk warnings, regime signals), and explains the contribution-gated access tiers. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to decide.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.